Yuri Melamed

Andrei Kiselev
SKB ‘‘Geotechnika,’’
2ya Roschinskaya str. 10,
Moscow 113191, Russia
Michael Gelfgat
Aquatic Company,
Letnikovskaya str. 7–9,
Moscow 113114, Russia
Don Dreesen
James Blacic
Los Alamos National Laboratory,
GeoEngineering Group, MS D443,
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Hydraulic Hammer Drilling
Technology: Developments
and Capabilities
Percussion drilling technology was considered many years ago as one of the best ap-
proaches for hard rock drilling. Unfortunately, the efficiency of most hydraulic hammer
(HH) designs was very low (8 percent maximum), so they were successfully used in
shallow boreholes only. Thirty years of research and field drilling experience with HH
application in former Soviet Union (FSU) countries led to the development of a new
generation of HH designs with a proven efficiency of 40 percent. That advance achieved
good operational results in hard rock at depths up to 2000 m and more. The most recent
research has shown that there are opportunities to increase HH efficiency up to 70
percent. This paper presents HH basic design principles and operational features. The
advantages of HH technology for coiled-tubing drilling is shown on the basis of test
results recently conducted in the USA. 关S0195-0738共00兲00101-1兴

R&D and Field Application Background
General. The application of percussion drilling methods to
hard rock results in the following advantages as compared to ro-
tary drilling: 1兲 the impact loads at the bit inserts in percussion
drilling are much higher than the load levels typically achieved in
rotary drilling; and 2兲 the time of total contact of inserts with the
rock is substantially less than during rotary drilling. Contact time
in percussion drilling is typically 2 percent of the total operational
time. This provides high efficiency rock destruction and decreases
the abrasive wear of the drilling tool.
The major feature of the percussion drilling is creation of a
crushed zone directly beneath the area of impact. Fractures are
initiated which allow shearing processes to remove the cuttings
easily and increase the rate of penetration. The most productive
method of rock destruction in this respect is percussion-rotary.
This method optimizes the amount of impact load in relation to
standard rotary drilling compressive and shear loads.
At present, some institutions and companies involved in the
drilling business are vigorously considering hydraulic hammers
for a variety of purposes, such as: coiled-tubing drilling; explor-
atory drilling for oil and gas, including extended reach boreholes;
geothermal drilling; exploratory drilling for hard minerals; and
offshore scientific and geotechnical drilling, coring and sampling
of soft, unconsolidated soils and formations at sea and lake bot-
toms 关1–4兴.
FSU Experience. The start of hydro-percussion drilling de-
velopment in the USSR dates from the late 1940s. The main ob-
jective was to increase rates of penetration and drill bit perfor-
mance both in geological prospecting, or ‘‘mining,’’ and slimhole
oil field drilling in hard formations. R&D work, including inves-
tigation of hydraulic machine operational processes and introduc-
tion of percussion drilling to the industry, were implemented in
several scientific research institutes and mechanical design bu-
reaus. This work has resulted in a great improvement in the per-
formance of percussion drilling systems 关5兴.
The All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Drilling Tech-
niques 共VNIIBT兲 made the major contributions in theoretical and
experimental studies of hydraulic percussion tools for oil field
application. Several designs of the reverse action-type hydraulic
hammers, VVO-5A with 130-mm outside diameter and VVO
6-5/8 with 168-mm diameter, were developed and field tested.
Field testing of these hammers started in 1960 in Bashkiria, West
Ukraine, and the Belgorod region. In 1963, testing started in the
Perm region as well. During the tests, more than 10,000 m of hard
formations were drilled as deep as 1400 m. The rate of penetration
in medium hard rock, like limestone, sandstone with siliceous
interlayers, was in the range of 4–10 m/h. That rate was two to
three times more than rotary drilling results in the same condi-
tions. During the field and bench tests, the application of
percussion-rotary drilling in oil and gas wells using different types
of bits 共cone, drag, and combined兲, was studied 关6兴.
The Special Design Bureau 共SKB兲 ‘‘Geotechnika’’ commenced
hydraulic hammer development in 1957, and at present is the only
enterprise in Russia continuing R & D work in that area of drilling
technology. The hydraulic hammers of direct action, double ac-
tion, diffuser types, and hydro-vibrators of different types, includ-
ing ones without moving parts, have been developed. More than
70 HH prototypes have been fabricated and tested both in the
laboratory and in boreholes. These include tools with outside di-
ameters from 42 to 145 mm. Twenty types went into batch pro-
duction. During that time, the theory, bench test facilities, and
measuring systems were improving continuously. Experience in
design, manufacture, and application was gained. The latest de-
signs provided wireline coring techniques, soil investigation, and
a core-type hammer for the continuous, reverse-circulation coring
system 关7,8兴.
The advantages of percussion drilling were confirmed by nu-
merous comparative tests and jobs performed in different geologi-
cal conditions. In 1988, the percussion-rotary and rotary-
percussion methods were used to drill over 3,000,000 m. The
latter amounted to 15 percent of the total drilling for hard mineral
deposit exploration by the USSR Ministry of Geology 关9兴.
Hydraulic percussion hammers were used to explore for all
types of minerals, from coal and iron to mercury, gold, and water,
in boreholes with depths down to 2000 m and diameters from 46
up to 220 mm. Penetration rates, as compared to rotary drilling
共depending on geological conditions兲, were increased from 30 to
100 percent; service life of the drill bit improved by 20 to 200
percent; and deviation of boreholes and their costs were drasti-
cally reduced.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF EN- Rock Destruction by Impact Loads
ERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the Petroleum Division,
February 2, 1997; revised manuscript received September 27, 1999. Associate Tech- Basic Principles. A downhole hydraulic hammer generates
nical Editor: A. K. Wojtanowicz. an impact load, which is transmitted to the drilling tool 共drill bit,

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2000 by ASME MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 1

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 core bit, etc.兲 through an anvil. The hammer and bit 共Fig. 1兲 form
a mechanical system that consists of the jar-peen 共sometimes this
part of the hammer is named ‘‘hammer’’兲 and the intermediate bar
共anvil兲 with a length that is significantly greater than its diameter.
The latter is attached to the drill bit.
Transmission of load from the jar-peen to the drill is analyzed
by using stress-wave theory for metal bars undergoing collision.
This theory applies for flat parallel impact surfaces. In reality,
there are no flat impacts, because of misalignment of jar-peen and
anvil, as well as other manufacturing tolerances.
An applied theory of collision developed by Alexandrov and
Sokolinskyi assumed a bar with spherical ends and is useful in our
case. This theory takes into account the observed impact time
increase, in addition to the time predicted by the classical wave
theory.
It was established that the amplitude of the stress wave created
at the top of a bar decreases along the axis according to an expo-
nential law. The dampening depends on the number of thread
connections between the components and the length of the system.
There is a step change of the stress wave at each change in cross
section of jar-peen and anvil. This wave propagates down to the
bit through the anvil and other members, and then divides into two
waves at the cutter-rock contact point. The first is the main trans-
mitted wave and the second is the reflected wave. Experimental
studies show the reflected wave consists of two parts: tensile wave
and compressive wave. The first is smoothly transformed to the
second. In the case of rigid bottom connection, the stress in the
contact point increases until it is double the magnitude of the
down-coming wave. Hydro-percussion drilling in hard rocks is
relevant to the latter case with double the contact stress, which
was proven both by calculations and experiments 关5,10兴.
Rock Destruction Approaches. Impact energy is the major
parameter determining percussion drilling efficiency. This was
Fig. 1 The hydraulic machine of Bassinger, USA, 1948–1957
†5‡
2 Õ Vol. 122, MARCH 2000
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
verified by numerous long-term studies of rock destruction by
static and dynamic loads. Impact energy can be increased with
increased jar-peen mass or increased velocity, once a critical im-
pact speed has been exceeded. In practice, the rate of penetration
is directly proportional to the impact energy. Experiments also
show that for complete energy transmission to the rock, the length
of anvil has to be equal to or greater than the length of jar-peen.
Based on theoretical studies and industrial requirements, two
hydro-percussion drilling methods were developed: 1兲 rotary-
percussion with relatively high rotary speed and high-frequency
impacts, and 2兲 percussion-rotary with lower rotary speed and
lower frequency, but higher impact energy 关11兴.
The first method was useful for coring with diamond core bits.
Their relatively low-impact energy was very productive in some
fractured formations. Problems with core recovery caused by jam-
ming were overcome and the rate of penetration was increased.
Efficiency of the diamond percussion drilling with more than
50-Hz impact frequency increased with increasing rotary speed.
The percussion-rotary approach was used to match the drilling
method with solid bits, tungsten carbide crowns 共drag bits兲, or
cone bits. For cone bit drilling, the percussion-rotary method gave
the highest penetration rate, but the bit bearing design had to be
changed. Tungsten carbide crowns were designed for both meth-
ods. It has been demonstrated that core can be effectively frag-
mented by the formation of disks with the application of high-
frequency impact loads 关12兴.
It will be shown in the forthcoming that the Geotechnika hy-
draulic hammers 共GHH兲 develop impact loads and frequencies
sufficient for the two drilling methods.
Hydraulic Hammer Design Concepts and Operation
Conditions
Design Concept and Classification. Hydraulic hammers can
be divided into three groups determined by the method of energy
extraction from the drilling fluid as follows 关10兴:
1 Direct-action hydro-hammers 共DAHH兲 with a hydraulically
powered impact stroke and spring-powered return. Energy is ex-
tracted from the fluid when the jar-peen accelerates down, before
it strikes the anvil. Part of the hydraulic energy is used for impact
and the other part accumulated in the spring to provide jar-peen
return 共cock the peen兲.
2 Reverse-action hydro-hammer 共RAHH兲 with a spring-driven
hammer impact stroke and hydraulically powered return stroke.
Energy is extracted during the jar-peen reverse stroke and accu-
mulated in the spring, which is then applied to the impact itself.
3 Double-action hydraulic hammers 共DBHH兲: impact and re-
turn strokes are both hydraulically powered.
The hydraulic hammer as a self-sufficient and self-sustained
oscillating system can be operated in resonance. That characteris-
tic is usually observed in machines with a spring-loaded valve:
共DAHH兲 and 共RAHH兲. The forces acting at the jar-peen can be
divided into regular and irregular 共stochastic兲 forces. The latter
includes: 1兲 jar-peen rebound force, which depends on the bottom-
hole conditions; 2兲 drag forces; 3兲 forces activated by drill string
vibrations; and 4兲 forces induced by the reflecting hydraulic
waves coming into the working chamber. Reduction of the num-
ber of moving parts reduces the irregularity of jar-peen operation.
Simplification of design provides increased operating stability.
This approach, applied to the DAHH, has been the main trend of
GHH development.
DAHH Operational Concept. A schematic of the DAHH is
shown in Fig. 2 关10兴. The hammer is shown at the moment when
the drill bit is set on the borehole bottom. The housing together
with the valve is moving down and closes the hole in the jar-peen.
That action creates the hydraulic shock, and the pressure inside
the chamber above the valve increases rapidly. The pressure be-
low the valve is: 1兲 the same as that in the annulus, or 2兲 less than
Transactions of the ASME
 with the valve piston, thus closing the valve. This is the ‘‘idle
stroke’’ phase. Drag forces during this phase have to be overcome
as well. The speed of the jar-peen and valve interaction deter-
mines the time of build-up of the hydraulic shock pressure. As the
jar-peen has some inertia and the pressure build-up requires some
time, so the jar-peen and valve continue to move up together until
the forces are balanced. This phase is called the ‘‘floating phase.’’
At this time, the rarefaction occurs and cavitation bubbles possi-
bly form. Then, the cycle repeats.

GHH Operational Features and Parameter Calculations.

The hydraulic shock generates the pressure wave with specific
shape, amplitude, and duration. The wave propagates up the inside
of the drill string with dissipation and reflection at each point
where the cross-sectional area or slope varies 共at each joint, for
example兲, to the mud pumps, valves, and pulsation dampeners.
During percussion drilling in shallow boreholes without a damp-
ener, wave interaction with the mud pump can cause damage to
the pump. A hydraulic wave reflector can eliminate substantial
dissipation of wave energy. The reflector has the added advantage
that the hydraulic energy reflected back toward the drill bit 共and
away from the string and mud pumps兲, may increase the effi-
ciency of the rock destruction produced by the hammer 关10,11兴.
Elastic and hard reflectors were developed, as shown in Figs. 3
and 4, respectively. The use of hard reflectors doubles the ma-

Fig. 2 The direct action hydraulic hammer, general scheme

†10‡

the annulus pressure if a rarefaction is induced by deceleration of

the flow stream with valve closure when the jar-peen has not yet
started to move down. If the absolute pressure is insufficient, cavi-
tation occurs and results in increased differential pressure. The
differential pressure acts against the piston 共top of the jar-peen兲 to
accelerate the jar-peen downward, together with the valve. During
this movement, both valve spring and jar-peen spring are com-
pressed. When the stroke exceeds Xk, the valve movement is
stopped by the top shoulder. This latter event is named ‘‘valve
cut-off.’’ The previous operational phase is named the ‘‘accelera-
tion phase.’’ The jar-peen continues its movement down to strike
against the anvil. That distance is Xb, and the operational phase
name is ‘‘free jar-peen stroke.’’ During this phase the valve
moves to the upper position, as flow balances the pressure on the
valve.
During the accelerating phase, the energy extracted from the
flow is consumed to accelerate the jar-peen, compress the jar-peen
spring, and overcome both mechanical and hydraulic drag forces.
The external force stops acting on the jar-peen after ‘‘valve cut-
off’’ occurs, and the jar-peen continues moving down by inertia.
During this phase, the jar-peen spring is compressed. The phase of
impact starts at the end of the free jar-peen stroke. At this time,
the jar-peen kinetic energy is transferred to the anvil and distrib-
uted as follows: one part propels the jar-peen rebound and the
other drives the drill bit to impact against the rock, with the re-
flected and transmitted waves originating, as explained in the fore-
going.
At the end of the impact, the jar-peen starts moving up by the
forces of the spring and reflecting wave, which defines the re- Fig. 3 The submerged pneumatic elastic reflector PPO-70, GI,
bound. The jar-peen accelerates upward until it makes contact Ukraine †10‡

Journal of Energy Resources Technology MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 3

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 4 Hydraulic wave hard reflector, SKB Geotechnika, 1984
chine efficiency from 8–10 percent to 16–18 percent, with a two-
fold reduction of flow rate. Similar results were obtained for elas-
tic reflectors.
These designs had definite drawbacks and did not solve the
basic problem of increasing the efficiency of percussion drilling.
SKB ‘‘Geotechnika’’ developed a new design for the reflector,
which was based on long-term studies at special test facilities.
This reflector provides significant reduction of the mud flow re-
quired for rock destruction, and the machine efficiency increased
to 40 percent 关8兴.
Cavitation is the other element that has to be considered when
developing hydraulic hammers. The jar-peen acceleration in-
creases when cavitation occurs, but with increase of the borehole
depth and hydrostatic pressure, the enhancement of the accelera-
tion stroke is diminished, and eventually eliminated. In this case,
the premature valve cut-off results in a short stroke, nonimpact
operating cycle. There are two ways to solve the problem. The
first, is to eliminate the conditions for the cavitation. The second,
is to control the duration of cavitation by adjusting parameters of
the hammer. The present GHH design eliminates cavitation. Some
preliminary experimental data supports the possibility of control-
ling cavitation.
With all the foregoing considerations, and accounting for the
drag forces in the valve motion, performance of GHH designs was
modeled. For each case, a model is developed with a system of
differential equations. The solutions are derived for each of the
operational phases described in the foregoing.
The current GHH designs are tailored to operate in both
percussion-rotary and rotary-percussion modes of drilling. GHH
designs are easily adjusted to operate in resonance, and have
25–40 percent efficiencies in borehole operations. Recent experi-
mental studies have shown the opportunity for a significant in-
crease in power for the GHH, and efficiency should approach 70
percent.
Drill Bits for Hydro-Percussion Drilling. Several types of
rock destruction tools have been developed in conjunction with
percussion drilling. First, there were solid bits and drag-type bits,
with tungsten carbide cutting structures. In these tools, both bits
and crowns are used, mainly for percussion-rotary drilling at rela-
tively shallow depths in medium and medium-hard rock. Impreg-
nated and surface-set diamond bits and crowns 共core drilling bits兲
were developed as well. These bits are best suited to the rotary-
percussion method in deep mining boreholes with hard, abrasive,
fractured formations. The cone-type bit was the main subject of
studies for percussion drilling.
During the percussion-drilling system development for oil and
gas field application, VNIIBT did some special studies of three-
4 Õ Vol. 122, MARCH 2000
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 5 Drill bit bearing design scheme †13‡
cone bit performance. The experiments were conducted with a
6-in-dia milled-tooth bit while drilling blocks of granite and
Vuselemovsky limestone. Rotary drilling tests were conducted to
compare with the percussion drilling results. Some major trends
were observed:
1 Rate of penetration varied linearly with the impact power.
2 Above the minimum threshold WOB, a lower WOB resulted
in a higher percussion drilling rate. For example, in the rotary-
percussion mode of drilling, ROP of 3.3 m/h was achieved with
the 8-3/4-in. bit when the WOB was 4.5 tonne. To achieve the
same ROP in rotary mode required 18.5 tonne.
During the field tests in Bashkiria in hard limestone and dolo-
mites, it was found that the effect of WOB is less important for
percussion drilling 关6兴.
SKB ‘‘Geotechnika’’ developed a range of three and two-cone
bits for rotary and rotary-percussion drilling for 46, 59, 76, 112,
and 132-mm-dia boreholes in hard and superhard abrasive forma-
tions. In the early 1980s, R & D projects were conducted on the
bearing assemblies. Several designs of the sleeve bearings for the
small-diameter cone bits were tested. The main problem with
sleeve bearing is to develop a lock mechanism to prevent loss of
the cones in the hole. Five batches of 76-mm bits were prepared
with five types of lock units. The tests were conducted in granite
blocks. The segment lock was found to be the best one in terms of
bit life. This type of bit was field tested in the Krasnoyarsk city
region at 300–450 m depth in granite with quartzite layers. Aver-
age penetration per bit was 11.8 m at an average ROP of 1.15 m/h.
Some additional modifications in bearing lock design 共Fig. 5兲 and
drill tests were performed before these bits 共III76K-TsA兲 were
introduced for percussion-rotary drilling with GHH G-76U ham-
mer. Tests achieved 17.8 m per bit 共80 percent more than stan-
dard兲, and 2.7 m/h ROP 共34 percent more than standard兲 when
drilling very hard, fractured basalt. The important point was that
the magnitude of drilling parameters, WOB and flow rate in
percussion-rotary, were 40–50 percent less than for rotary drilling
关13兴. The results of this R & D work have been applied to other
bit sizes 共i.e., 46 and 59 mm兲.
SKB ‘‘Geotechnika’’ completed the development of III59K-
TsA and III46K-TsA bits in 1987 共Fig. 6兲. Both bit sizes have
never been manufactured outside of Russia. The 46-mm cone is
the only commercial bit this size in the world. Field tests in hard
and superhard abrasive granites included more than 800 m with
59-mm bits, and 350 m with 46-mm bits. The average penetration
per bit was: 12–21 m with 4–5 m/h ROP for 59-mm bits and 7–8
m with 1.5–2.3 m/h for 46-mm bits, respectively. These tests
were for the rotary mode of drilling only 关14兴.
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 6 Three-cone 59 and 46-mm-dia drill bit, general scheme
†13‡
Testing of Existing GHH Prototype Tools
nated bit was not available from stock, so the surface-set bit 共de-
signed for hard formation drilling兲 was substituted.
For rotary drilling, a standard DRC test stand was used. MEI
modified a stand for percussion-rotary drilling. The stand was able
to record flow rate, pressure, displacement, WOB, and ROP. The
hydraulic motor used for assembly rotation provided only 150
rpm. The torque was not measured directly, but was estimated by
recording the oil pressure at the hydraulic motor. To determine the
impact frequency, an accelerometer was installed at the input hy-
draulic line. An oscilloscope and plotter were used for data pro-
cessing. The rock blocks were about 35 in. long, so each borehole
was 32–33 in. long, and two or three tests were conducted as each
borehole was drilled.
Percussion-Rotary Drilling Testing Performance. Eight
boreholes were drilled, but each bore included from two to four
tests, where WOB or flow rate were varied. The data are presented
in Table 2. Results of each test were presented on three charts.
Figure 8 shows the plots for test 527. The measured frequency
was 46–74 Hz. The pressure drop was used as the controlled
parameter along with the flow rate and the WOB magnitude,
which was specified for each test.
The cone bits showed considerable bearing wear during these
tests. Some axial play of the cones was clearly observed, and three
inserts of the two-cone bit were lost. Nevertheless, that failure did
not prevent additional testing.
The hammer start-up was very smooth in each test, but some-
times it was difficult to determine if the best operating conditions
were achieved. The reasons for that were: 1兲 difficulty in setting
the desired flow rate with the test stand pumps and control system,
and 2兲 the absence of an on-line frequency measurement system.
The last series of tests, 527, were performed with a ramping of the
pressure drop in an attempt to find the best operating parameters
for those conditions. The influence of the flow-rate/pressure-drop
increase on the ROP was demonstrated.

General Concept. To obtain additional information for better Conclusions From the Test Results.
evaluation of the proposed microborehole coiled-tubing percus- 1 The G-59U共V兲O-type hydraulic hammer results confirmed
sion drilling system components, the following prototypes were the expected performance advantages of percussion-rotary drilling
recommended for lab testing at the Maurer Engineering Inc. Drill- in hard rock.
ing Research Center 共MEI DRC兲 in Houston, Texas.
1 GHH G-59U共V兲O type, 1996 design model: housing diam-
eter 54 mm, single impact energy exceeding 12 J, and fre-
quency range 40–80 Hz;
2 Three-cone bit, III 59K-TsA type;
3 two-cone bit, II 59TK-TsA;
4 diamond impregnated bit, 59-mm diameter;
Testing included a series of 1–3 ft boreholes drilled with vari-
ous assemblies in blocks of granite and marble rocks. Both rotary
and percussion-rotary methods would be used over a range of
WOB, RPM, and flow rates.
The main objectives of the test program were:
1 demonstrate rock bit suitability for horizontal coiled-tubing
drilling in hard rocks;
2 evaluate GHH tool efficiency for horizontal coiled-tubing
drilling in hard rocks;
3 determine the influence of the percussion drilling parameters
on the ROP.
SKB ‘‘Geotechnika’’ prepared a standard G-59U共V兲O hammer
assembled from components manufactured at the SKB factory in
1994 共Fig. 7兲. Table 1 shows standard hammers available 关9兴. The
smallest hammer was selected for testing, disassembled, checked,
adjusted for the expected drilling conditions, and reassembled.
Bench tests at the SKB facilities were performed to check the
hammer operating parameters. The assembled tools, the hammer,
the reflector and a set of spare parts, were delivered to the DRC.
Cone-type drill bits as specified, and a surface-set-type diamond
bit, were purchased from stock in Russia. The 59-mm impreg- Fig. 7 Unified hydraulic hammer, SKB Geotochnika †9‡

Journal of Energy Resources Technology MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 5

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1 Geotechnika hydraulic hammers specifications

V-for rotary-percussion drilling; with fluid flow reduction unit; U-for percussion rotary drilling; O-with hydrodynamic wave reflector

2 For the coiled-tubing drilling 共CTD兲 application, an efficient
method of rotation needs to be developed. The simplest way
might be to adapt the existing low-speed PDM for that purpose
and conduct additional tests. The power required for the assembly
rotation was roughly evaluated on the basis of the hydraulic motor
performance data. A 1.6-kW PDM should be sufficient for CTD
drilling with the GHH assembly.
3 The modified test stand provided 150 rpm maximum assem-
bly rotation. It is well known from field drilling and laboratory
testing experience that ROP is linearly dependent on the rotary
speed for rotary drilling. For percussion-rotary drilling, this de-
pendency is supposed to be linear as well.
4 ROP increased noticeably, with increased WOB from zero to
1,500–2,000 lb. Further increases in WOB to 3000 lb showed
different results: in marble 100 percent improvement, and granite
15 percent improvement.

Table 2 General results of the percussion-rotary drilling tests at MEI DRC

6 Õ Vol. 122, MARCH 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 The percussion-rotary method shows a 7.3-times higher ROP than
rotary. At the best operational conditions for both methods,
percussion-rotary still has a 2.3-times advantage in ROP over the
rotary method.
7 The major advantage of percussion drilling for CTD applica-
tion is the possibility of achieving good performance under low
thrust conditions.

Acknowledgments
ergy through contract W-7405-ENG-36.
final proofing and formatting of this paper.
References
Fig. 8 Plots with percussion-rotary test results at the MEI DRC
5 The GHH must be operated at the proper flow rate, pressure
drop, and frequency; these are more important for this drilling
method than appropriate WOB.
6 The direct comparison of ROP at the equivalent drilling pa-
rameters can be made on the basis of test 527A and the rotary
drilling test at the same conditions: 150 rpm and 1500 lb WOB.
This work was funded by the United States Department of En-
Thanks to Jody Benson, Los Alamos National Laboratory, for
关1兴 Knott, D., 1996, ‘‘Deep Thoughts on Drilling Technology,’’ Oil & Gas Jour-
nal, June 10, p. 29.
关2兴 ‘‘High ROP Hammer Drill Sets Australian Records,’’ 1996, Hart’s Petroleum
Engineer International, Sept., p. 13.
关3兴 Gelfgat, M., Gamsakhurdia, G., Geise, J., and Spierings, H., 1994, ‘‘Complete
System For Continuous Coring With Retrievable Tools In Deep Water,’’
IADC/SPE Paper 27521, Dallas, TX.
关4兴 Finger, J. T., 1984, ‘‘Investigation of Percussion Drills for Geothermal Appli-
cation,’’ J. Pet. Tech., Dec., pp. 2128–2136.
关5兴 Graf, L. E., and Kogan, D. I., 1972, Hydro-Percussion Machines and Tools,
Nedra, Moscow, Russia.
关6兴 Kichigin, A. V., Nazarov, V. I., and Tagiev, E. I., 1965, The Percussion-
Rotary Wells Drilling, Nedra, Moscow, Russia.
关7兴 Kiselev, A. T., and Krusir, I. N., 1982, Rotary-Percussion Drilling of Geologi-
cal Prospecting, Wells, Nedra, Moscow, Russia.
关8兴 Melamed, Y. A., 1993, ‘‘The Hydraulic Impact Technology: Large Possibili-
ties and Wide Application Spectrum,’’ Razvedka I Okhrana Nedr (Russian
Journal ‘‘Bowels of the Earth Prospecting & Protection’’).
关9兴 Operations Manuals & Technical Descriptions, 1988, ‘‘Hydro-Percussion
Drilling Techniques and Technology,’’ USSR Ministry of Geology, Moscow,
Russia.
关10兴 Yasov, V. G., 1977, The Theory and Calculations of the Hydraulic Machines
Operational Processes, Nedra, Moscow, Russia.
关11兴 Kiselev, A. T., and Melamed, Y. A., 1984, ‘‘Perspectives of the Rotary-
Percussion Drilling Development with High-Frequency Hydro-hammers with
Low Flow Rates,’’ Proceedings, High School: Geology and Prospecting, No.
11, pp. 85–94.
关12兴 Melamed, Y. A., 1995, ‘‘The Theoretical Ground And Techniques For Hydro-
Percussion Core Drilling Development,’’ doctor of science thesis, Geological
Prospecting Academy, Moscow, Russia.
关13兴 Smirnov, V. G., 1983, ‘‘The Research In The Design Elements Of Three-Cone
Drill Bits 76 mm Diameter With Sleeve Bearing,’’ Techniques for the Ad-
vanced Drilling Methods, Moscow, VPO ‘‘Souzgeotechnika,’’ pp. 108–122.
关14兴 Bodrov, S. M., Ivanovskaya, N. I., and Burinskyi, G. G., 1991, ‘‘Cone-Type
Drill Bits III59K-TsA and III46K-TsA,’’ Razvedka I Okhrana Nedr (Russian
Journal: ‘‘Bowels of the Earth Prospecting & Protection’’), No. 5, pp. 24–26.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 7

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/08/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms